Many
of you by now have received your 2010 Census form in the mail and have
waded through the questions. I must admit I was braced for much more intrusive
questions but was still wondering why the federal government needs to
know whether I own or rent the dwelling I am inhabiting and how that allows
them to ascertain my states representation.

On the
very front of the envelope it states “U.S. Census Form Enclosed
YOUR RESPONSE IS REQUIRED BY LAW.” And I thought
to myself, oh really? If the central government is defined by the constitution
and all other powers are reserved to the states or to the people (10th
Amendment) where do they get their power to go beyond that?

So I
did a bit of research and this is what I found:

Article
1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution states: “The actual
Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of
the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of
ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.”

The
word enumeration means to count or list one after another. The clause
further defines the reason for ascertaining this number and that is to
determine the number of representatives for each state and for the purposes
of apportionment of direct taxes. And the definition of Census simply
means “a complete enumeration of a population.” But I guess
Census was easier; after all who wants to go around saying enumeration
all day?

And
as far as the closing stanza the term “in such manner”
means the method in which it is to be completed shall be directed by law
from Congress. It says nothing of adding additional purposes to the enumeration,
I mean census, and the entire Federalist Paper #55, believed to have been
written by James Madison February 13, 1788, speaks only of counting the
inhabitants of each state for the purpose of ascertaining the number of
representatives for those states.

Now
remember I said that the envelope stated you had to answer the questions
“by law?” Well that is found under Title 13 U.S.C. Section
221(a) and (b) which assigns a fine of $100.00 for each unanswered question
and a fine of $500.00 for any false question.

Okay,
I found the law but for any federal law to be valid it must by constitutional.
And anyone who has done any research at all into the constitutionality
of federal law knows that the federal government will stretch any logic
it can to build a nexus from the Constitution to the law even if it is
absurd. It doesn’t make them right it just makes them wrong with
a gun.

In Morales
V. Daley Secretary of Commerce, dealing with a challenge to the 2000 Census;
Morales believed the various questions asked on the census form was an
invasion of his privacy and was unconstitutional. I think we can all guess
the outcome of this case but what is interesting is not the predictable
outcome but the reasoning’s for that outcome.

The
court cited a Supreme Court Case of McCullough V. Maryland (1819) in which
the court stated: “The Constitution orders an enumeration of
free persons in the different states every ten years. The direction extends
no further Yet Congress has repeatedly directed an enumeration not only
for free person in the States but for free persons in the Territories,
and not only an enumeration of persons but the collection of statistics
respecting age, sex, and production. Who questions the power to do this?”

It is
amazing to me that the Supreme Court flat out admits that Congress is
acting outside the constitution when they state “The direction
extends no further Yet Congress has repeatedly directed…”
A clear example of Congress acting as it wants regardless of the Constitution
solely because they want it and the Constitution be damned! We will see
more of this shortly.

The
Morales case goes even further by citing United States V. Moriarity (1901)
stating: “This does not prohibit the gathering of other statistics,
if ‘necessary and proper,’ for the intelligent exercise
of other powers enumerated in the constitution… For the
national government to know something, if not everything,
beyond the fact that the population of each stated reaches a certain limit,
is apparent, when it is considered what is the dependence of this
population upon the intelligent action of the general government.”

I don’t
know about you but when I read the foregoing utterance by a justice of
our government I could only think “What Arrogance.” They wish
us to believe that they can do anything under any pretense if they can
tie one action with a separate power. With that logic why not have the
IRS collect and determine postage rates. After all they deal with money,
our money, but money none the less. And the audacity to think that the
federal government has the authority to not only know anything about you
but EVERYTHING because we are all just a bunch of serf
dependents waiting to be told what to do by our intelligent
general government. Do you wonder now why we have so many Big Brother
conspiracies out there? Makes you wonder if they are really conspiracies
or maybe finders of the truth when our own government speaks of the people
this way.

Advertisement

The
Morales case argued that many of the questions go beyond the enumeration
of states inhabitants to areas that are not part of the powers of Congress.
The government responded that the courts in Wisconsin V. New York (1996)
“makes it clear that the Constitution has given to Congress
very broad discretion in conducting the census.” Really, maybe
they read a different Constitution from the one I have? It seemed pretty
cut and dry to me – count the number of people to determine representation
and direct tax apportionment. Where is the broad discretion listed in
the Constitution if not only in the minds of those that want it that way?
A typical tactic of the left is to read the Constitution for what it can
do for them not for what is says.

Morales
goes on to explain further citing “Department of Commerce v.
U.S. House of Representatives, 525 U.S. 316 (1999), notes that the census
as mandated by the Constitution is for enumeration so that congressional
districts may be established, but that the census-taking process has a
long history of including much more than a simple headcount.”

So now
we actually have a little truth streaming through the clouds of government
obfuscation; “the census-taking process has a long history of
including much more than a simple headcount.” So you see asking
for more than just a head count is beyond the constitutional power of
the Congress BUT we’ve been doing it this way for such a long time
and the stupid dependents have given us the information so we keep on
doing it.

The
Morales case goes on to argue that because of the historical fact that
the Census has always asked questions that apparently any question may
be asked when it stated: “The Census Bureau points out that
from the very first census, performed in 1790, Congress authorized questions
pertaining to age, gender, and race. It also points out that the Supreme
Court defers to the statutes of the First Congress because so many Framers
of the Constitution were members of that congress. The fact that the First
Congress included questions in addition to the head count is strong support
for the constitutionality of additional questions as a general proposition.”

And
though technically correct, they did answer questions pertaining to race
and gender due to the apportionment rules within the Constitution that
required it. Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3, prior to what was mentioned
above states: “…Which shall be determined by adding to
the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for
a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all
other Persons…” So you can see that in order to determine
the correct number for apportionment/representation they needed to establish
the separation of these numbers and it was not JUST to gain more statistical
data.

You
can read the history of the First Census from the Census Bureau’s
own report archived at their web
site. Contained within this archive is the pertinent information gathered
which states: “The schedules which these officials prepared
consist of lists of names of heads of families; each name appears in a
stub, or first column, which is followed by five columns, giving details
of the family. These columns are headed as follows:

Free
white males of 16 years and upward, including heads of families.
Free white males under 16 years.
Free white females, including heads of families.
All other free persons.
Slaves.”

So even
though they may have “asked” or counted based on family names
it was at its basis solely an enumeration of the population garnering
the numbers within a household and nothing more. The justices use of this
as a basis for the full expansion of “knowing everything”
is a far cry from the purpose and intent of the enumeration clause.

What
I find very interesting is the government’s assurance in the Morales
case that we can trust the government to do what they say. In particular
they stated: “the Census Bureau assures him and the court that
the law forbids the Bureau from attributing Van Fleet’s answers
to Van Fleet.” (Van Fleet was a codefendant on the case) So
if the Census Bureau does not attribute our answers to our names then
why do they need our names? After all the majority of the census is based
upon place of residence, to include unusual places such as college, nursing
homes, etc, and with the exception of the homeless which is also discussed
in the census documents. So why connect all this data to individuals if
there is no intent to tie that information to the individual?

The
answer will surprise most of you but it is for historical reasons. From
the very first census the data has been made available to certain groups
such as genealogical societies, veteran groups, and others. In fact the
very first census, under President Washington, Congress passed an amendment
to the bill to provide for selling the data to genealogical and patriotic
groups to assist in the recovery of funds. Again we are asking more and
more questions because that’s the way we’ve always done it,
but it is not constitutional.

The
final argument by the court was: “Applying the Wyoming v. Houghton
analysis, it is clear that the degree to which these questions intrude
upon an individual’s privacy is limited, given the methods used
to collect the census data and the statutory assurance that the answers
and attribution to an individual will remain confidential. The degree
to which the information is needed for the promotion of legitimate governmental
interests has been found to be significant.”

So again
we see their logic; the government wants the data so they pass the questions
to the Census Bureau and have them add it to the census and make it a
crime not to answer the question. And if anyone dares question their authority
they risk thousands of dollars in fines. And of course they ask us to
trust them because they have done so well in the past like with social
security.

Subscribe
to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!

Enter
Your E-Mail Address:

The
bottom line is that under the strict interpretation of the wording of
the Constitution the expanded questions, like do you rent, mortgage, or
own your home outright, are outside the constitutional authority of the
government. But they have passed the law, constitutional or not, that
empowers them to do so. Again, it doesn’t make them right it just
makes them wrong with a gun and for most in this country that is enough
to get them to comply and that is just what they expect from this dependant
population.

Michael
LeMieux was born in Midwest City, Oklahoma in 1956 and graduated from
Weber State University in Utah with a degree in Computer Science. He served
in both the US Navy and US Army (Active duty and National Guard) and trained
in multiple intelligence disciplines and was a qualified paratrooper.
He served with the 19th Special Forces Group, while in the National Guard,
as a Special Forces tactical intelligence team member. He served tours
to Kuwait and Afghanistan where he received the Purple Heart for injuries
received in combat.

Mr. LeMieux left military duty at the end of 2005 after being medically
discharged with over 19 years of combined military experience. He currently
works as an intelligence contractor to the US government.

Michael
is a strict constitutionalist who believes in interpreting the constitution
by the original intent of the founding fathers. His research has led him
to the conclusion that the republic founded by the Constitution is no
longer honored by our government. That those who rule America today are
doing so with the interest of the federal government in mind and not the
Citizens. Michael believes that all three branches of government have
strayed far from the checks and balances built into the Constitution and
they have failed the American people. A clear example is the Second Amendment,
which the Supreme Court and the founders have all said was an individual
right and could not be "infringed" upon, now has more than 20,000
state and federal laws regulating every aspect of the individuals right,
a definite infringement. He has traveled around the world living in 14
States of the Union including Hawaii, and visited (for various lengths
of time) in Spain, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Korea, Scotland, Pakistan, Mauritius,
Somalia, Diego Garcia, Australia, Philippines, England, Italy, Germany,
and Puerto Rico.

Michael
now lives in Nebraska with his wife, two of his three children, Mother-in-Law
and grandchild. His hobbies include shooting, wood-working, writing, amateur
inventor and scuba diving when he can find the time.

So again we see their
logic; the government wants the data so they pass the questions to the
Census Bureau and have them add it to the census and make it a crime not
to answer the question. And if anyone dares question their authority they
risk thousands of dollars in fines.